Home Gloucester Do Cuts Need To Go So Deep? (via Moreland Labour Party)

Do Cuts Need To Go So Deep? (via Moreland Labour Party)

by Barry

See the article written by Cllr Mark Hobbs, leader of the Gloucester City Labour Group. It does enforce the common Labour position abut the depth and ferocity of the cuts in such a short period.

As a country we find ourselves in a period of uncertainty economically and politically with far reaching cuts being made by the coalition Government and our local Tory Councils. No matter the size of the cuts, the reduction in debt or the streamlining and rationalization of services being made, it is the effect that these cuts will have on us as socially and economically as a city and indeed the country as a whole, which is the key factor. It is … Read More

via Moreland Labour Party


Joe K December 8, 2010 - 10:14 am

Good to see another Gloucester blog (I wonder if it’ll be friends with me?).

I see, though, that it was written on November 24th, and has only now been re-printed in The Citizen. I guess the paper made it plain in the printed version that it was from the Moreland blog, but it took them a while online to even say who wrote it. I wonder if they paid anything for it, even to charity? I wonder if they’d print one of my blog entries? Not the next one, I think…

But as regard the article/entry itself, yes, they seem to be ignoring the realities of how far volunteering will stretch to cover the shortfall. However, the public, too, seem to have a ‘free lunch’ mentality, as if the ‘Big Society’ is something somebody else has to run. Part of the problem, especially round our way, is a whole lot of little societies who want to keep themselves to themselves.

As it happens, the neighbourhood partnerships are holding their officers’ meeting today, in Kingsholm, and cuts are going to be big issue. Instead of giving each partnership a grant of £2,000 per year, the city council want to keep £20,000 in one big pot, with each partnership making an application on a case by case basis. It means some groups won’t be able to accrue an excessive surplus (or ‘cash for a rainy day’), but it also means one partnership might apply for, and get three, four, five thousand or even more, pounds for a particular project. If there was a cap of £2,000, after all, why make the change? Except to keep that wad of money in the council’s coffers a little longer, that is…

(Edit by Barry – I thought keeping the money in a Pot would be more appropriate 😉 )

Joe K December 8, 2010 - 10:20 am

Hmm, whatever word I meant to use to describe where the council would keep the £20,000, I’m sure it wasn’t ‘post’. Bundle? Package? Dollop?

Joe K December 11, 2010 - 8:56 pm

🙂 I honestly can’t remember if that’s what I was aiming for, but ‘pot’ it must surely have been. It accords with the annoying tendency of my brain to take a word, confuse it with something similar, and tell my cerebellum to type that word instead.

I missed the meeting, due to a culinary catastrophe at home. I’ll have to wait for news to trickle back, or the minutes themselves. However, I already see from today’s paper that Play Gloucestershire has lost its funding, and the Gloucestershire Youth Parliament has postponed elections for a year and dispensed with Deputy MYPs. Money is going to be begrudged this coming year like nobody’s business, or everybody’s business. I hope people do come together, in this ‘Big Society’, and cover the shortfall (with internet users playing their part, providing information, encouragement and a sympathetic ‘ear’), but as I said earlier, helping out for no monetary gain is seen as a mug’s game, so it may be a futile hope.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More